Guinea vs Paraguay: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD)
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Guinea
- Paraguay
How they compare
Paraguay currently reports 815 DB16-20 methodology against 777.78 DB16-20 methodology in Guinea, a difference of 37.22 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Paraguay has been ahead every year.
Guinea ranks 21st and Paraguay ranks 19th of 186 countries.
Paraguay has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd), Guinea or Paraguay?
- Paraguay, at 815 DB16-20 methodology against 777.78 DB16-20 methodology in Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd) between Guinea and Paraguay?
- 37.22 DB16-20 methodology, with Paraguay ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea and Paraguay?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
- How do Guinea and Paraguay rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: border compliance (usd)?
- Guinea ranks 21st and Paraguay ranks 19th of 186 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to export: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The cost for border compliance to export records the cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the export shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. It is calculated in US dollars. The cost for this segment include the cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other agencies. For example, the cost for conducting a phytosanitary inspection would be included here. Informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.